Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34414321›Full record

ArticleJMA journal2021

Distribution and Retention Trends of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Japan: A Longitudinal Study.

Masatoshi Ishikawa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMA journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Masatoshi IshikawaHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis longitudinal study aimed to investigate the distribution and retention of obstetricians and gynecologists in Japan.

methodsI used descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression to analyze data from National Census surveys administered during 1996-2016.

resultsBetween 1996 and 2016, the number of obstetricians and gynecologists increased by 6% and urban physicians by 15%, whereas the number of rural physicians decreased by 25%. The annual retention rate, which was calculated using the square root of the biannual rates [the number of physicians still working as obstetricians and gynecologists at the time of the subsequent survey (e.g., in 1998) divided by the number of obstetricians and gynecologists in the original survey (e.g., in 1996)], was >90%. Obstetricians and gynecologists were less likely to continue to work as obstetricians and gynecologists after 30-44 years of experience (1996-2006 cohort: OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.17-0.25; 2006-2016 cohort: OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.25-0.41) and >45 years of experience (1996-2006 cohort: OR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.11-0.17; 2006-2016 cohort: OR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.08-0.15). The odds were lower for rural obstetricians and gynecologists (1996-2006 cohort: OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.51-0.82; 2006-2016 cohort: OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.43-0.80). As the number of female physicians increased, the number of practicing obstetricians and gynecologists also increased. In 2004, the mandatory postgraduate clinical training that was newly implemented caused a drop in the number of young doctors; however, this reversed in 2006. Rural to urban migration was steady, and the working hours were consistently long. To stabilize high retention rates, the working environments need to be improved.

conclusionsThe present study clearly indicated the trend of the distribution of obstetricians and gynecologists in Japan. The result may be especially important for the health policy making in Japan.

Indexed as

censusesdistributionJapanlongitudinal studyobstetricians and gynecologists

Identifiers

PMID34414321
PMCPMC8355730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.